Skip to content

refactor: rename JUnit extensions to be more explicit #1254

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 31, 2022
Merged

Conversation

metacosm
Copy link
Collaborator

Fixes #1215

@metacosm metacosm self-assigned this May 31, 2022
@metacosm metacosm requested a review from csviri May 31, 2022 11:10
Copy link
Collaborator

@csviri csviri left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@metacosm metacosm changed the base branch from main to next May 31, 2022 13:12
@metacosm metacosm force-pushed the rename-extensions branch from 326ba56 to 702f5e9 Compare May 31, 2022 13:32
@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 15 Code Smells

58.3% 58.3% Coverage
0.7% 0.7% Duplication

@metacosm metacosm merged commit 495220c into next May 31, 2022
@metacosm metacosm deleted the rename-extensions branch May 31, 2022 13:46
@metacosm metacosm mentioned this pull request Jul 1, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

JUnit Local/Remote wording for OperatorExtension is not meaningfull to me
2 participants